SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2354, 19 October 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTING. Tuesday, October 18. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston, j The quarterly session of the Supreme Court opened at 11 a.m. BREAKING AND ENTERING. Albert Adams, who pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking into a dwelling-house at the Oust on the 12th of July, and stealing therefrom, was sentenced to hard labour for twelve calendar months. James Lambert, alias James AaLby, was charged with breaking and entering into a shop and dwelling house, belonging to Samuel Mumford, at Sydenham, on August 9th, end stealing certain articles therefrom. The prisoner, who pleaded "Not Guilty,” was defended by Mr Spackman. Mr Duncan briefly stated the case for the prosecution. Samuel Mumford, the prosecutor, sworn, deposed that he was in business as a fruiterer at Sydenham, and gave evidence similar to that recorded in the Magistrates’ Court. Charles Birmingham, a lad thirteen years of age, who was in attendance from Burnham School, being questioned os to the nature of an oath, was then examined, his evidence being a repetition of that previously given. Cross-examined by Mr Spackman—He was at Burnham j was not brought up for anything, but sent there as a neglected child. Prisoner lived at his mother’s house. He had access to all parts of the house. When the prisoner went into Mumford’s shop he knew it was for no good. Never found a diamond for cutting glass. The glass from Mumford’s window was placed at the back of a fence. Did not know if his mother ever saw the stolen goods. Daniel Mark, a tailor, living in Manchester street, repeated the evidence given in the Court below.

Cross-examined by Mr Spackman He knew prisoner, and recognised him as having been several times at his shop. The boy produced was the boy who called “Look out.” Mr Spackman here called attention to the depositions as being at variance with the present evidence, which his Honor noted.

Detective John Neill gave evidence as to searching the house. This was the case for the prosecution. For the defence, Mr Spackman called Anthony Ferriok, who was brought up in custody. He could not fix the date nor the day of the week on which prisoner came to his bouse.

Kate Birmingham, having been cautioned, deposed that prisoner lived at her house from June till August, during which time he never brought any goods of any description into the house.

Mr Spackman baring addressed the Court on behalf of the prisoner, his Honor summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty.” His Honor characterised prisoner as a mean sneaking thief, and sentenced him to four years’ penal servitude. The prisoner was acquitted on a charge of shoplifting. BBBAOH OP REGISTRATION ACT. John Horn was indicted for a breach of the Registration of Births Act, 1875. It appeared that accused bad made a false statement as to the mother’s maiden name. The prisoner having pleaded “ Guilty,” evidence was submitted as to prisoner’s respectability, and the Judge characterised his action as the result of folly. He would like to know if he would prefer the alternative of a fine. The prisoner having assented, his Honor said it must be a deterrent sum. The accused stated that he was a platelayer earning 6s a day. His Honor inflicted a fine of £lO, to bo paid before the Court was over. POBQEBX AND UTTBBINO. Charles Fryatt pleaded “ Guilty” to three charges of forgery and uttering (a fourth charge being withdrawn). They were all cheques for small amounts. Prisoner, who was a farmer in the Malvern district, then handed in a written statement to the Bench. His Honor having remarked thereon, said he would deal leniently with the prisoner, who was sentenced to twelvemonths’ hard labor on each count, to run concurrently. ANOTHBB CASE. Frederick Cooper, for forging and uttering a cheque for £3, was then brought before the Court. The accused pleaded intemperance, and bagged for mercy on behalf of a wife and young family. Sentenced to four years’ penal servitude. BREAKING INTO AND STEALING. John Sharkey pleaded ‘‘Guilty " to having broken into the shop of Q. D. Murohie and stealing four clocks therefrom. Ho had no guilty intention; he did not mean to steal them, and threw himself on the mercy of the Court.

Sentenced to twelve calendar month#’ im prisonmont. HOBBBBT -WITH VIOLENCE.

James White, Frank Carey, Jane Brown, alias Janet Miller, and Margaret Sutton, were then placed at the bar charged with robbery with violence on July 4th, 1881, on James Kennedy, at the Bakaia. Prisoners pleaded "Not guilty.” Mr Spaokman appeared for the prisoner Sutton.

Mr Duncan having stated the case to the jury, His Honor characterised the evidence as

very weak against Sutton, who was thereupon discharged. His Honor directed the jury that there was no evidence against Sutton, but as a second charge was pending, she was retained in custody. James Kennedy, the prosecutor, on being sworn, deposed to the circumstances of the case, as already given in evidence in the B.M. Court.

His Honor did not feel justified in lotting the case against White go to the jury on this robbery, as according to the evidence given White was absent, and a considerable time had elapsed, but after argument the examination of the prosecutor was continued, by which it appeared that White had sent him to the camp with Brown, whore ho was robbed prior to White’s return.

Mr Duncan thought White was an aocos sory.

The prosecutor was then cross-examined at considerable length by the prisoners White, Carey, and Brown, the latter prisoner being very loquacious, trying vainly to get prosecutor to admit that he had proffered to take her to Melbourne or Sydney. Ha also denied the accusation of having struck her. Thomas Orphic, barman at the South Eakaia Hotel, repeated the evidence ho had given at the R.M. Court.

James Wallace, of the Ohertsey Hotel, also repeated his former evidence respecting the sth July. Henry Francis, stationmaster at Ohertsey, deposed to the purchase of railway tickets by the female prisoner Brown, and also by Oarey on the same date.

Constable Rouse, stationed at Bakaia, deposed to the particulars connected with the arrest of the prisoners. Constable Smart, stationed at Ashburton, corroborated the previous evidence, deposing that White handed him £4.

Sergeant Felton deposed to Brown having handed up four £1 notes, two sovereigns and 4s Id, and other property, remarking that it belonged to Jim (meaning White). Cross-examined by White—When Brown said the money belonged to Jim, he was sure she meant White.

His Honor asked Mr Duncan it he should press the case against White. Mr Duncan said he hardly thought there was sufficient evidence.

His Honor, addressing White, said he would direct the jury to return a verdict of acquittal, as ho saw what sort of a fellow ho was. Had Carey or Brown anything to say. The prisoner Brown would call Sutton and White as witnesses.

Margaret Sutton was then called, and after being cautioned by his Honor, stated that she did not see Kennedy give Brown any money, but did hear him ask her to go to Melbourne with him. Ho loved her because she was Scotch, as he was.

James White, who was also cautioned, swore that ho saw Kennedy give Brown £23. Ho wanted her to go to Melbourne with him. He saw prosecutor tear Brown’s ulster. Did not see him strike her. He corroborated the statements of the previous witness. On being called upon to address the jury, the prisoner Brown then read a written statement, after which his Honor summed up, and the jury retired at ten minutes past 6 o’clock to consider their verdict. At 7.30 the foreman returned into Court, announcing there was no chance of a verdict being arrived at.

His Honor replied that they must go on till they arrived at a verdict. They would bo provided with refreshment, and he would return at 10 o’clock to receive their verdict. At 10 20 the jury returned a verdict of “ Guilty of robbery without violence.” Sentence was deferred.

The Court rose at 10.40, to sit again at 10 o’clock this morning. This Day. The sitting of the Court was resumed at 10 a.m, ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO 808, James White, Frank Carey, Jane Brown and Margaret Sutton wore indicted for having, on July sth, in company, assaulted one Colin McKay with intent to rob him. Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown. Mr Spackman defended the prisoners White and Sutton. The case for the Crown was that the prisoner White met the prosecutor at the South Bakaia Hotel, where they had drinks, the prosecutor paying for them with a £1 none. The prisoner White then asked the prosecutor to accompany him to where he was camped. Ho did so, and on arriving there he found the prisoner Carey and the two female prisoners in the tent. Prosecutor sat down, and prisoner White threw him backwards, and while Carey held a knife to his throat the former rifled his pockets, taking 17s 6d therefrom. The prosecutor ultimately got away from the camp, and gave information, upon which the prisoners were arrested. His Honor asked Mr Duncan if be could hope to obtain a conviction against the female prisoners. The only evidence was that they were near the spot. Mr Duncan said ho should offer no evidence against them. His Honor then directed the jury to return a verdict of acquittal, and the prisoners were discharged. The case against the other two pasoners was then proceeded with. Mr Duncan led evidence in support of the case for the Crown.

A lengthened argument ensued between his Honor and the learned counsel on the point of the advisability of the details of a complaint made by the prosecutor to the barman of the South Rakaia Hotel after the alleged robbery. Ultimately Mr Duncan did not persist in the question. Mr Spackman addressed the jury for the defence. His Honor summed up.

The jury retired, and after a short ab sence returned into Court with a verdict of “ Guilty.” Mr Broham read a list of convictions against the prisoners White and Carey. Mr Spackman respectfully submitted that these convictions must be proved. His Honor said that these returns were

made to the police periodically. However, to satisfy Mr Spackman, perhaps Mr Broham could give evidence of those convictions. Detective Thomas Neil deposed that White, in Dunedin, had received six months for larceny, and eighteen months for larceny as a bailee; Carey had received a sentence of three mouths each on six charges of larceny. They were also the associates of prostitutes and convicted thieves. Brown was a prostitute of the lowest type. The prisoner Brown, who had been convicted on a previous charge of robbery, was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment with hard labor.

His Honor, in sentencing Carey, pointed out that he had been convicted on two indictments of robbery, one being with violence. He was one of the worst characters that could exist in the community. His Honor then sentenced the prisoner to penal servitude for eight years on the last indictment, that of robbery with violence. On the first indictment the prisoner would be sentenced to three years’ penal servitude; the two sentences to run concurrently. As to White, a less sentence would be passed upon him. He would be sentenced to six years’ penal seivitudo. It was absolutely necessery that such criminals as these should be put out of the way for a considerable period. MALICIOUS INJUET, Joseph Sparks was indicted for having on October Ist wilfully maliciously destroyed a quantity of bottles of brandy, &c., the property of Thomas Mullins, the licensee of the Junction Hotel, Lincoln road. The prisoner, who pleaded “ Not Guilty,” was defended by Mr Holmes. Mr Duncan conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Crown. The case for the Crown was that the prisoner went to the Junction Hotel on the night of the date mentioned and asked for a drink. The prosecutor Mullins, who saw the prisoner was drunk, declined to servo him with drink. The prisoner was very riotous, and went out into the road and threw large stones through the windows of the bar, destroying the property laid in the indictment. Mr Duncan called evidence in support of the case for the Crown.

After the case had proceeded soma way, Mr Holmes said he would withdraw the plea of “ Not Guilty,” and plead “ Guilty ”

to the charge of the damage, leaving the case m the hand* of the Court.

His Honor said this was a very wise and prudent course to pursue. Mr Holmes called evidence as to the character of the prisoner. All the witnesses who had known the prisoner for many years testified to the good character of the prisoner. His Honor asked whether the prisoner was prepared to pay for the damage done. If he was so, he would inflict a merely nominal sentence.

Mr Holmes said the prisoner would make an offer to pay by Instalments. His Honor said he could not help the prisoner then.

After some further conversation between his Honor and Mr Holmes, the latter said that the prisoner could not pay any damages, nor had he any friends. His Honor said that in this case the prisoner must go to prison. The prisoner would be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment without hard labor. TEXTS BILLS, During the day the Grand Jury returned true bills in the following cases :—Regina v W. J, Wilson, indecent assault; Regina v Frederick Lane, larceny of boilers; Regina v B. Q. Buxton and M. Theresa Buxton, arson ; Regina vF. P. O’Eoilly, libel. This conthe calendar, and the Grand Jury wore discharged without making any presentment. INDECENT ASSAULT. Charles Chamberlain was indicted for this offence. Mr Stringer appeared for the prisoner, who pleaded “Not Guilty.” Mr Duncan lead evidence, but the case failed on the cross examination of the prosecutrix, and the jury returned a verdict of “ Not Guilty ” by direction of his Honor. The prisoner was then discharged. At this stage the Court adjourned till two o’clock.

On the Court resuming, Mr Stringer asked his Honor if he would appoint a time for the hearing of the case against Buxton.

Mr O'Reilly—Tour Honor, I am the leading counsel in this case, but, under present circumstances, I do not wish to address a jury. If your Honor will permit, I would prefer Mr Stringer to lead in this case.

Hi* Honor— I make a point not to interfere in questions of precedence, except when the Attorney or Solicitor-General i* concerned. You may arrange it amongst yourselves. LARCENY AB A BAILEE. Thomas Oolyer was charged with haying, whilst bailee of a horse, dray, and harness, the property of one O. Q. Parker, disposed of the same for hie own use and benefit. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Holmes, pleaded “ Not Guilty." Mr Martin led evidence in support of the case for the Orown, which was one of the ordinary kind, the prisoner having been in charge of the horse, dray, and harness, and offered them for sale. The prisoner, who was in difficulties, had induced prosecutor to pay out the bailiffs who were in possession, and had given him, by an agreement, a lien over his property, it being understood that when it was sold by the prosecutor, if the amount realised the sum paid by prosecutor, the latter should give the prisoner the horse, dray and harness. Until the sale returns were sent in prosecutor left all the property in the hands of the prisoner to take care of. About a week afterwards prosecutor showed prisoner the account sales, and told him that the amount realised did not admit of the handing over to him of the horse, dray and harness, and that ho (prosecutor) would have to keep them. He stated that he would allow prisoner to have the use of the horse, dray and harness on payment of interest on the amount realised by them at the sale. Subsequently, as already stated, the prisoner offered them for sale, and did sell the horse to J. M. Heywood and Co. [Left sitting.]